Opened 21 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
#493 closed defect (fixed)
Treat mktemp as its own pkg - split out from lfs-utils
| Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Book | Version: | CVS |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
Contains tempfile and mktemp.
mktemp is not confirmed yet, the issue with calling an insecure function is said to be fixed by passing --with-libc to ./configure
Awaiting confirmation. Until confirmation arives, don't use package yet. When confirmation arives, we'll discuss what to do. Either include mktemp in lfs-utils, or as a separate package.
Change History (16)
comment:1 by , 21 years ago
comment:2 by , 21 years ago
New release. linuxfromscratch.org/~winkie/downloads/lfs-utils-0.2.1.tar.bz2
comment:4 by , 21 years ago
| Priority: | low → highest |
|---|
comment:5 by , 21 years ago
| Status: | new → assigned |
|---|
comment:6 by , 21 years ago
| Status: | assigned → new |
|---|
Unassigning until after PLFS upgrades are completed.
comment:7 by , 21 years ago
| Summary: | lfs-utils-0.1 → lfs-utils-0.2.1 |
|---|
comment:8 by , 21 years ago
I had suggested this on the list, dunno if there was any response. Just wanted to put it here in case someone thought it is worthwhile.
We can use the mktemp package with a) either a tempfile wrapper script, OR b) patch the scripts that require tempfile to use mktemp.
comment:12 by , 20 years ago
| Resolution: | fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
Should mktemp be moved to BLFS? See Greg's comments at <http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2003-November/040615.html>.
comment:13 by , 20 years ago
Should mktemp be moved to BLFS? See Greg's comments at
No. I never suggested that it be removed from LFS and/or added to BLFS. I was just making the point that mktemp is not an essential, critical pkg and nothing depends on it therefore one could argue for it's removal from core LFS. I suggested that it stay as part of lfs-utils. Some folks are complaining it should be installed in it's own right and not as part of lfs-utils. I can see their point but disagreed on the basis that including mktemp in it's own right was not justified for such a tiny piece of code.
comment:14 by , 20 years ago
| Priority: | highest → high |
|---|---|
| Summary: | lfs-utils-0.3 → Treat mktemp as its own pkg - split out from lfs-utils |
comment:15 by , 20 years ago
| Priority: | high → normal |
|---|
comment:16 by , 20 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
Using separate mktemp in newxml as of now - no need for this bug to stay open.
Ermm... the version of mktemp included in lfs-utils doesn't need nor want any options passed to its configure. In fact, it doesn't even HAVE a configure. Just unpack the tarball and "make all install". Btw, it's up to 0.2 now.